Even those five names remind us that there have been many difficult cases over the years, where the heavy boots of Thailand’s royalist, militarist and even democratic forces have come down hard on individuals judged to have stepped out-of-line. There isn’t a Thai government I can name that hasn’t played the political game when it comes to lèse-majesté.

Some of our detractors like to claim that New Mandala‘s occasional emphasis on this topic distorts our analysis of the overall picture of Thai society and politics. Of course there is much more to the country’s current problems than the restrictions on free expression reinforced by Article 112 of the Criminal Code.

Yet since it seized power in the May 2014 coup, the military regime has insisted on some of the lengthiest lèse-majesté sentences in Thai history. The 30-year sentence recently imposed on Pongsak Sriboonpeng is a case in point. And sadly he’s not alone. The list of Thailand’s political prisoners grows by the month.

Robust international condemnation has followed these soul-destroying sentences, including hard-hitting statements from the United Nations. And yet there is no indication that Thailand’s power brokers are prepared to temper their aggressive prosecutions.

From their perspective the security, indeed the very existence, of the kingdom relies on such harsh punishments, and they make no apologies for stomping out dissent. It’s classic authoritarian posturing. It also works under conditions where many Thais have been led to believe that perceived opponents of the Thai monarchy are the lowest-of-the-low.

Under the current military regime it looks like there is almost no chance of reform to the law. It is just far too useful given the politics of succession that are swirling around.

What does this mean for the country? Can anything be done about the chilling effect of lèse-majesté?

Nicholas Farrelly is the co-founder of New Mandala, a Fellow in the Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs, ANU, and a strong advocate for the study of Thai society.

This has nothing to do with the king.This is the current government. They have had this law before but you had to go out of your way to get in trouble with this law. The couple that did they play about a stupid king were very happy after they got their sentencing which seems like they meant to poke fun at the king. The king and most of his family handles themselves with dignity. The only thing that bothers me is the recent arrest of people talking bad about the prince. It is difficult to find anything good to say about him. So i worry the prisons will be overcrowded if they arrest everyone who says anything bad about him.

Lèse-majesté is just a too convenient and potent political tool with which to prosecute opposition to the alliance of the Palace and the Military, and to assure their perpetual privileges to ever be rescinded or ameliorated. The present regime seems not to care two hoots about Western Government concerns. On the contrary, they are seeking new friends in China where the communist regime barely tolerates criticism of its human rights abuses.It would take a revolution in Thailand to get rid of this iniquitous law.

As long as the military retains control over political processes in Thailand, there appears to be no hope.
But, wait. What if, what if in the royal succession process, a ruler is named who later decides to reject the notions of the past. Can he or she win out over far-right forces in Thailand? After all, HM the King has in the past made statements indicating a willingness to liberalize the position of the royal family in Thai society.

Use of the lèse-majesté law has become progressively more ruthlessly applied as the King’s health has declined. It is used by the military to protect its own legitimacy, which is lent by the institution of the monarchy.

After a recent sentencing 30 years. The BBC reported about it and mentioned Thailand’s “Revered” monarch? Later I saw a friend skipping through posts on Facebook and was truly shocked. There was a photo of HM in his golden gown we see everywhere but his face obscured by a foot, not drawn but photographed. Seems the only reverence comes from the foreign press as one never hears it in day to day or even official conversations. Why do they not dare to ban Facebook? What would happen if the BBC reported on a much reviled monarch?

As long as the country does not become politically mature – and it probably has to go through some kind of struggle -, progress is not likely on this issue. A part of the Thais live in a delusional world – where coups reinforce democracy and the voice of the majority is called dictatorship -, and delusion is one of the three sins in Buddhism.The passage in D. Streckfuss’s ‘Truth on Trial’ where he explained the huge and absurd increase of LM cases at the end of the German empire, and, then, its sudden collapse, is very instructive.

Any competent academic or journalist knows that freedom of expression and freedom of thought are essential to allow us to do our jobs. Which means that every competent academic and journalist has to oppose Thailand’s lese majeste law. When I first started questioning my reporting as a Reuters journalist, back in 2010/11, and decided to become an exile from Thailand so I could publish the cables, New Mandala was a huge inspiration to me, and indeed I announced my intentions first on New Mandala. Back then, it was a hugely vibrant community for those of us who focus on Thailand. It was really invaluable. Nowadays, I rarely check New Mandala because the informed debate I used to find there is gone. Maybe I was part of the problem: I got involved in a lot of arguments with opponents of freedom of speech, and this must have been tedious for many readers. But I think the moderation policy at New Mandala was also to blame. A few years ago, the comments section was a wonderful and always enlightening forum. Now it’s mainly a venue for trolling and abuse. So that’s why I stopped checking New Mandala regularly. I think we all know the forum is a disaster these days, compared to a few years ago, at least for Thailand. I hope it becomes relevant again. The way forward would be to moderate more actively, allowing people to share views from across the political spectrum, but requiring their comments to be constructive and sensible.

Ever wonder when you get into youtube and found so many abusing M112 Le Majeste against our king and queen plus the members of the royal family with names of animals used against our king and queen and profanity towards the royalty family. I am sure if this would have happened in U.K.; Spain; Holland and Denmark with monarchies still around, I am sure no governments of that particularly country can tolerate this magnitude of Le Majeste spreading around either as Thaksin and his cronies are the ones behind this magnitude of Le Majeste even to the extent of dissecting Thailand into 4 parts i.e. North as Lanna; Northeast using Udonthani; South using the Wadah who has connection with the separatist’s movement and finally Bangkok. Even with harsh law as being in place at moment there are still a lot of cronies of Thaksin who are paid by local influential politicians in respective regions supporting them monetarily to carry out the Le Majeste. Go and read what our King and Queen have done in the past to help elevate the living of the people in various parts of the country and you will understand that our Monarchy shouldn’t be treated as they are by all these villians.

There are from time to time significant and heavy critic of the royals and their specific acts, you will find comedy shows which makes fun of them every year. But in almost all of the above countries you mention there are NO prosecutions despite that we have a lese majeste law. You will also find that there is a constant debate of the place of the monarchy in a modern society. personally I think it is wat more interesting that the lese majeste law seems to be made broader and broader in Thailand and include privy councils, certain military activities, whereas in the rest of the world the law is made narrower, further the sentence in all cases have always been public. I think you forget that even your own king have said that King’s make mistakes and should be critized.

Andrew MacGregor Marshall you are being unfair to NM’s moderators. If there are more trolls and abuse on this site than before – though I see no evidence of your outrageous claim – this would surely be a function of Thailand’s increasing polarisation, and no fault of the moderators, doing an increasingly difficult job.

Nick wrote: “Under the current military regime it looks like there is almost no chance of reform to the law. It is just far too useful given the politics of succession that are swirling around.”
That misunderstands the situation. The lese majeste crackdown is part and parcel of the politics of succession. Open discussion of the monarchy essentially “democratizes” royal affairs, and that is antithetical to how the military and the palace want it, and, indeed, is antithetical to the idea of monarchy, absolute or constitutional. They don’t want the people involved in the succession. (While I doubt they are generally conscious of it, look at the example of the post-war royal crisis in Belgium.) So lese majeste (and in my view the junta itself) is not going to disappear until King Bhumibol dies and someone new takes the throne. And probably not then, until the next sovereign is completely comfortable that they can rule with the kind of barami that Bhumibol has, rather than constant threat.

As the founding fathers of the United States realised, democracy and monarchy of any kind, constitutional or absolute, are fundamentally incompatible. They are opposites. Constitutional monarchy is a fraud. In a place like Australia it is a fraud designed to keep the crawlers happy. In Thailand it is a fraud designed to give the people the false impression that they have some say in the way they are governed. The term is an oxymoron. A monarch who acts only on the “advice” of the elected government is taking orders from the elected government, and is no monarch at all. A monarch who rides rough-shod over constitution after constitution is an absolute monarch no different from a mafia boss.

For R N England to state, as if it were an undisputed fact, that constitutional monarchy is a fraud, instead of merely being his own opinion, displays arrogance and ignorance in equal measure. His claim might hold water if applied only to those monarchies which do not welcome public scrutiny, but to use the same yardstick for the monarchies of northern Europe is just plain silly.

For fraud to succeed, people need to be kept in the dark as to what is going on. In Britain, and those Commonwealth countries which retain the monarchy, people have enough information for them to make up their minds on the matter.

Around 70% of us in Britain support the monarchy not because we are crawlers, or gullible, or oppressed, but because, for the time being at least, and all things considered, we have come to the conclusion that our constitutional monarchy suits us well, and is a better system of government than any of the alternatives. Of the 30% who don’t want to retain the monarchy, no doubt some see it as a fraud, others will have other reasons for their point of view. That’s fine. That such opinions can be openly expressed is probably one of the reasons why our monarchy has survived, and retained its popularity.

England’s claim that any monarchy is the antithesis of democracy is also, in my opinion, wrong. If, in a free, open and democratic country, a majority of the population wish to retain a monarchical system, then that system of government is democratic.

Acrually, such a system is neither democratic nor “modern”. Monarchy is based on ascribed status and genealogy. A monarch is monarch, as the old saying goes, by the “grace of god”. Democracy in contrast is based on the “grace of the people”. In working democracies we do not find an elected “lifetime” president, but that is what monarchs are! Furthermore, modernity is based on achievement! Just being son or daughter of someone should not imply a special status. As a monrach is always the head of state (not government!), the head of the administration, should certainly not be someone who has this position merely due to birth (grace of god). This would be in rather stark contrast to Max Webers discussion of a professional, rational administration!
That some countries in Europe maintain their feudal traditions, has more to do with folklore then anything else. In particular, especially the Britisch monarchy is financed to a large degree by the EU (Uagricultural subventions)! Thus, if Britain would leave the EU, I doubt that they will still be willing to pay for the maintenance of their monarchy!

I am being misrepresented here. My post did not state, as an undisputed fact, that constitutional monarchy is a fraud. It contained key reasons as to why that should be so.
Thailand has a long history of popular submission to monarchy. I call it crawling. The Thais are learning to walk upright and are being whipped back down again by the last dregs of that superficially civilised, but fundamentally thuggish system.
The British people are pioneers in learning to walk upright, but the process is unfinished. The historical evolution of British bipedalism can be summed up in a string of dates, all of them commemorating heroic attempts to get the monarch off their backs: 1215, 1620, 1649, 1688, 1776 and 1834-35. The last is not so familiar: it was the last time a British monarch attempted to appoint a government against parliamentary majority.
In attempting to make sense of history, we are trying to establish matters of fact. These stand or fall according to the evidence, which we are required to produce. They are not matters one can expect to solve by popular vote. Popular opinion in Australia favours a republican model in which a separately elected president could become involved in a conflict with an elected parliament. Informed republicans have put the whole thing on the back burner because that could produce a worse outcome than a little bit of crawling.

I don’t know where the idea that the British monarchy is largely financially supported by the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy comes from. In reality it is funded by the British taxpayer. The cost amounts to slightly less than USD1 for every man, woman and child in the UK. Not exactly an unbearable burden!

According to a paper presented by David Streckfuss, the UK monarchy costed the UK taxpayer $1.06 per capita, against an equivalent cost in Thailand of $5.65 per capita (not sure of year, but pre-2012). The most expensive monarchy in the world, both absolutely and relatively for its burden on the taxpayer by a long shot is Swaziland, which cost $30 / capita, placed on the small population of just one million. Thailand ranked second in the world for its burden on taxpayers, when per capita incomes are taken into account. This and much other interesting data and analysis on the relative financial burdens and democratic de/merits of various monarchies globally, can be found on the FACT website link below:

To HRK, agree the EU agricultural subsidies are rather scandalous and definitely need reform, but they are not the fault of the British monarchy, but a lack of democracy in the heart of Europe. Closer to home is the question of tax breaks on income earned on royal estates, which our elected parliamentarians have the power to change, should they so wish and the electorate decide it is a matter that concerns them.

The British monarchy is certainly not responsible for EU policies, however, as large landowner they gain from it. If people prefer to have a monarchical system, I don’t mind. It certainly has its charme and many newpapers and magazines make their living from the folklore associated with it.

I’m not sure why R N England thinks he is being misrepresented. In his comment he stated that “Constitutional monarchy is a fraud”. Period. No ifs and buts, no qualifications. His meaning seems clear enough to me.

In all the dates he rather impressively lists, in only the last one was the British monarchy anywhere close to what we would currently define as Constitutional, but he does show that the relationship between the British people and the monarchy has evolved over time, and that process will no doubt continue.

I wouldn’t presume to speak for monarchies elsewhere in the world, including Australia and Thailand, but in Britain we have enough information to make up our own minds about whether or not our monarchy is a fraud. If and when we do so decide, then, and only then, will it be a fact!

You misrepresented me as somebody who made an unjustified assertion, when I made an assertion that was backed up by a solid argument. Your attempted refutation is the kind of argument that would deny tobacco sales to be fraudulent so long as the majority of adults continued to smoke, and would have them become fraudulent once smokers were in the minority.
Through all this confusion, I think you are implying that I am guilty of lèse majesté towards the head of the class system to which you belong.

Constitutional monarchy is a system in which the monarchy is merely symbolic and political power lies with Parliament. The monarch is said to have influence not power and is seen as a unifying symbol. Republicans would rather have a system in which elections determine who is symbolic of the country.

In the UK no one knows what percentage of the people support retaining the monarchy as authoritative surveys are lacking. There has never been a referendum on this question.

This is getting silly. I don’t support any kind of lese majeste law, in the UK or anywhere else.

The Founding Fathers of the USA might have regarded monarchy as incompatible with democracy, but in the northern European monarchies at least, this does not seem to be the case. Some of these countries are rated amongst the most open and free in the world.

Opinions, backed up by evidence and information are fine, but it’s always wise to avoid the sweeping statement, or the presumption that one knows more about a subject than anyone else.

I agree with Andrew MacG M’s comment about the need for proper moderation. This article is about the cruelty of Lese Mageste in Thailand and the writings about the cost of the Queen of England and the like are most unhelpful. If your readers cannot restrain themselves, do your job moderator.

The analogy involving cigarette sales is also rather silly. Such sales would not be fraudulent provided that smokers had all the relevant information they needed regarding health risks, and what the cigarettes contained.

A fraud is a deliberate deception, perpetrated by denying people the relevant information, or feeding them false information. To get back to the original subject of this exchange of views, that might well apply to some monarchies, and to one in particular, but not to all.

There is at least one Thai journalist who keeps the world on daily notice of lese majeste cases in Thailand.
I expect she’ll keep on reporting …. until LM injustice ends.

HONG KONG (AFP) – Thai journalist Mutita Chuachang has won the 2015 Agence France-Presse Kate Webb Prize for her powerful and persistent reporting of royal defamation cases that have multiplied under the country’s military rulers.
The prize honours journalists working in difficult conditions in Asia, and is named after a crusading AFP reporter who died in 2007 at the age of 64 after a career covering wars and other historic events.

Mutita, 33, was recognised for her dogged efforts to record cases of alleged lese majeste for the online newspaper Prachatai, which publishes in Thai and English.

In a free and open society, Thailand would be able to accommodate people who are not emotionally attached to the king, people who are against the draconian lese majeste law, and people who are against the monarchy as a person or institution.

The current climate dictates that you must either love and revere the king (Good People) or you must definitely hate the monarchy and be anti-monarchist (Bad People), however.

Anything in between, any nuance and shade that exists, have been purged at the price of truth and honesty.

OPINION TODAY’S EDITORIAL
We need a clearer definition of lese majeste
December 07, 2016 01:00
By The Nation

Blurred line on royal defamation is preventing national debate vital to the Kingdom’s progress

Over the weekend, the police arrested a pro-democracy student activist and charged him with insulting the monarchy after he shared a BBC article about King Maha Vajiralongkorn .

The article was posted on the British broadcaster’s Thai-language Facebook page.

The arresting officer said the article violated the country’s lese majeste law, prompting the first arrest for royal defamation since the new King ascended the throne last Thursday.

Jatupat Boonpattararaksa, a law student, faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted on the charge.

Jutapat, a member of the outspoken pro-democracy Dao Din student organisation, was arrested in the Northeast province of Chaiyaphum while attending a religious ceremony. The group has held a series of public protests against the military-led government. Needless to say, there isn’t much love for its members among their target, the junta.

The arresting officer and his team appear to have acted on their own discretion in judging that Jutapat’s conduct violated the law.

However, it is not clear why he was singled out for arrest when others had previously shared the same article. Could it be that the police also took into account his past criticism of the ruling junta?

Their action also raised another more important and more difficult question: what, precisely, constitutes an insult to the monarchy?

For years, governments have used Article 112, better known as the lese majeste law, to silence political dissidents and to further their own agendas.

The law is readily exploited in this way because no one can say where the line of is drawn. Then-Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya tried to disperse the damaging confusion in 2010 when he told an audience at Johns Hopkins University that Thailand needed to debate the evolution of the monarchy.

“I think we have to talk about the institution of the monarchy,” Kasit said.

“How it has to reform itself in the modern globalised world … Just like what the British, Dutch, Danish or Liechtenstein monarchies have gone through to adjust themselves to the modern world.”

Opposition politicians in Thaksin Shinawatra’s camp pounced on that statement, but then made little headway in their attempts to damage Kasit’s standing.

Broaching this taboo subject can cost a politician or bureaucrat their career, since those responsible for enforcing the law feel compelled to act quickly.

The mystery in Jutapat’s case, then, is why police only acted several days after the allegedly defamatory post had been shared.

Meanwhile, if sharing the post violated the lese majeste law, then the content must also be problematic.

Will the police involved in the arrest now be charged with negligence for not flagging up the original BBC report?

The point here is that when it comes to lese majeste, nobody seems to know the standard operating procedure or where the red line lies. Since assuming power after the coup, the military-led government has gone after lese majeste suspects with all its might, thus lowering the threshold of the law.

The junta has little legitimacy in terms of a democratic mandate but sees claims authority as the defender of the revered institution. It also claims that the coup was launched in order to launch much-needed reform that would strengthen democratic institutions and process. The generals’ talk of reform has since been replaced by a discourse of law, order and stability, and defending the institution of the monarchy is part of that initiative.

In this globalised and Web-connected world, it is virtually impossible to prevent anybody from sharing article deemed defamatory or otherwise illegal. Given that cold reality, we need to come up with a clear definition of what constitutes lese majeste.

As it stands, the law can be exploited by any person, using their personal and flawed judgement, to claim an action or statement defames the monarchy regardless of its context. And when it comes to such a sensitive issue, one’s judgement can always be cloudy.

About the Author

Dr Nicholas Farrelly is the co-founder of New Mandala. A graduate of the Australian National University and the University of Oxford, over the past 20 years he has undertaken research in Thailand, Myanmar, Bangladesh, China and India. Nicholas is Associate Dean of the College of Asia and the Pacific at the Australian National University, where he also leads the ANU Myanmar Research Centre.